What's new

Chinese Media : China ‘halts road building’ to end India border stand-off

You still have to pay for news sharing genius :lol: ...... how much depends on the sharing agreement.

In any case, if it was lies, why did the chinese editor publish it ? :lol:
I think you have no idea how newsharing networks functions. It's a private HK based newspaper, they can publish opinions and news from around the world. Newspapers in HK tend to be impartial they will publish Indian and Chinese views. That's why it's an international media hub.

Nope you can believe Shi Jiang tao and Kristin Huang , since they wrote that article :lol:
http://www.scmp.com/author/kristin-huang
How much more public shaming do you want ?
How can I believe them when they said facts remain 'sketchy' since they themselves are unsure? And now you expect me to believe Ankit Panda for the previous article?

Isn't PANDA Cheeni ? ;);)
Yah, but this Panda is fully black. :rofl:
 
How can I believe them when they said facts remain 'sketchy' since they themselves are unsure? And now you expect me to believe Ankit Panda for the previous article?

No one cares what you believe.

They said "DETAILS" remain sketchy, not "facts" :lol: Facts are pretty clear that they agreement was for mutual withdrawal.

As reported by chinese journalists and published in a Chinese news media of considerable repute. LOL at your denial.
 
No one cares what you believe.

They said "DETAILS" remain sketchy, not "facts" :lol: Facts are pretty clear that they agreement was for mutual withdrawal.

As reported by chinese journalists and published in a Chinese news media of considerable repute. LOL at your denial.
Bro you are getting so desperate and frustrated. Anyway nice talking to you. :rofl:
 
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...-learns-border-row-india-will-not-buckle-over

South China Morning Post
China learns in border row India will not buckle over security

New Delhi succeeds in securing the status quo on the border after military standoff ends, leaving both nations eyeing each other warily, writes Ankit Panda

The months-long border standoff between China and India on the Doklam plateau, an obscure patch of disputed land near Bhutan in the Himalayas, came to a sudden close in the final days of August – days before Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Xiamen BRICS nations summit.

Weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomatic effort succeeded in defusing what once appeared to be a high-stakes and intractable crisis.

The Indian and Chinese foreign ministries released statements on Monday acknowledging a drawdown. While each country’s statement about the details of the end to the standoff varied in emphasis, there was no apparent contradiction.

India highlighted an “understanding” between the two sides that led to the “expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site”, just 60 odd metres from the Indian Army’s outpost on the Bhutanese border at Doka La.

Reports later confirmed that India had secured a withdrawal of Chinese troops – including construction crews – from the site of the standoff.

China, meanwhile, chose to emphasise a different point in its statements. Its foreign ministry spokeswoman carefully underlined that Indian troops had withdrawn from the territory at the centre of the standoff – territory that China sees as unquestionably Chinese.

What was left unaddressed in both sets of statements was the question that sparked the standoff. Indian Army troops crossed a ridge on June 16 separating the Indian state of Sikkim from what New Delhi sees as the territory of its ally, Bhutan. They crossed over to prevent the extension of an existing road by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

During the near three-month-long standoff, India and Bhutan sought a simple outcome – the restoration of the status quo at Doklam to conditions before June 16. In short, India and Bhutan sought to prevent the extension of the existing road that had been used by China for years.

The denouement of the Doklam standoff highlighted that New Delhi succeeded in attaining this outcome – all without Bhutan having to diverge from its carefully calculated position of silence. Bhutan does not have normal diplomatic relations with China and the two countries have several outstanding territorial disputes beyond Doklam.

China, meanwhile, claimed that it would continue patrols in the area, as it did prior to the start of the standoff, and, more ambiguously, to exercise “sovereignty” in the area. The statement from the Chinese offered Beijing a face-saving way out of the impasse.

New Delhi’s sober official reaction did not stop the chest-thumping in much of the Indian media about the Indian “victory”.

Of course, Doklam was always about more than a road on an obscure piece of disputed territory. Yes, Indian strategists feared the implications of China’s military potentially extending the road a few kilometres south, but ultimately, Doklam was about how Asia’s two large, nuclear-armed, rising powers saw each other.

In the lead-up to the standoff, India had already sharply rebuked President Xi’s signature “Belt and Road” international trade initiative. It released a sharply worded statement clarifying the conditions that must underlie infrastructure and connectivity initiatives in Asia.

New Delhi’s opposition was borne of its genuinely divergent interests, but also served as a mode of paying back Beijing for its refusal to support India’s accession as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an international group aimed at countering the export of equipment to make nuclear weapons, plus its tendency to go to bat for its ally Pakistan at the United Nations.

For China, the experience at Doklam will serve as a source of important lessons on everything ranging from New Delhi’s resolve when its national security interests are involved to India’s self-conception as a great power in Asia. The standoff was an illustration that if China sought to put India in its place, so to speak, after the public opposition to its “Belt and Road” initiative, it would have to expend greater resources and expose itself to more risk.

Once it became clear that the two ways out of the impasse at Doklam were a military conflict that neither side wanted or the solution that was eventually reached –India’s desired final goal – diplomacy prevailed.

What comes after the Doklam saga will matter greatly for the relationship between China and India. They will remain side by side, their border will remain disputed. Their relationship will maintain an uneasy balance between cooperation in some matters and intense competition in others.

The end of the standoff restores this state of affairs. What remains to be seen is if the bitter experience at Doklam leaves a lasting stain on how India and China see each other.

Ankit Panda is a senior editor at The Diplomat, where he writes on international security, diplomacy and economics in the Asia-Pacific region



@Dungeness @Raphael @Chinese-Dragon @SingaporeGuy @sinait @Han Warrior @Kiss_of_the_Dragon @Jlaw @Feng Leng @Beast


From the author, you know it's an indian. SCMP despite owned by Jack Ma recently is still anti China with many editor who are pro hk Independence Party still around.

If it's xinhui news who post it , I will take it real.
 
Yah, but this Panda is fully black. :rofl:
ankit_panda.jpg
Fairer than most Cheeni Pandas .:P
 
Last edited:
ankit_panda.jpg
Whiter than most Cheeni Pandas .:P
Not get so sensitive, relax. :rofl:

From the author, you know it's an indian. SCMP despite owned by Jack Ma recently is still anti China with many editor who are pro hk Independence Party still around.

If it's xinhui news who post it , I will take it real.
It's not even from SCMP, it's SCMP news sharing The Diplomat. Btw, why do you care about all these 'anal lyst'? None had any idea of todays announcement yet. India is tryng to potray as if China will only patrol. The fact is we are gonna patrol and be stationed there. Who wouldn't after what just happened.
 
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...-learns-border-row-india-will-not-buckle-over

South China Morning Post
China learns in border row India will not buckle over security

New Delhi succeeds in securing the status quo on the border after military standoff ends, leaving both nations eyeing each other warily, writes Ankit Panda

The months-long border standoff between China and India on the Doklam plateau, an obscure patch of disputed land near Bhutan in the Himalayas, came to a sudden close in the final days of August – days before Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi meets Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Xiamen BRICS nations summit.

Weeks of behind-the-scenes diplomatic effort succeeded in defusing what once appeared to be a high-stakes and intractable crisis.

The Indian and Chinese foreign ministries released statements on Monday acknowledging a drawdown. While each country’s statement about the details of the end to the standoff varied in emphasis, there was no apparent contradiction.

India highlighted an “understanding” between the two sides that led to the “expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site”, just 60 odd metres from the Indian Army’s outpost on the Bhutanese border at Doka La.

Reports later confirmed that India had secured a withdrawal of Chinese troops – including construction crews – from the site of the standoff.

China, meanwhile, chose to emphasise a different point in its statements. Its foreign ministry spokeswoman carefully underlined that Indian troops had withdrawn from the territory at the centre of the standoff – territory that China sees as unquestionably Chinese.

What was left unaddressed in both sets of statements was the question that sparked the standoff. Indian Army troops crossed a ridge on June 16 separating the Indian state of Sikkim from what New Delhi sees as the territory of its ally, Bhutan. They crossed over to prevent the extension of an existing road by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

During the near three-month-long standoff, India and Bhutan sought a simple outcome – the restoration of the status quo at Doklam to conditions before June 16. In short, India and Bhutan sought to prevent the extension of the existing road that had been used by China for years.

The denouement of the Doklam standoff highlighted that New Delhi succeeded in attaining this outcome – all without Bhutan having to diverge from its carefully calculated position of silence. Bhutan does not have normal diplomatic relations with China and the two countries have several outstanding territorial disputes beyond Doklam.

China, meanwhile, claimed that it would continue patrols in the area, as it did prior to the start of the standoff, and, more ambiguously, to exercise “sovereignty” in the area. The statement from the Chinese offered Beijing a face-saving way out of the impasse.

New Delhi’s sober official reaction did not stop the chest-thumping in much of the Indian media about the Indian “victory”.

Of course, Doklam was always about more than a road on an obscure piece of disputed territory. Yes, Indian strategists feared the implications of China’s military potentially extending the road a few kilometres south, but ultimately, Doklam was about how Asia’s two large, nuclear-armed, rising powers saw each other.

In the lead-up to the standoff, India had already sharply rebuked President Xi’s signature “Belt and Road” international trade initiative. It released a sharply worded statement clarifying the conditions that must underlie infrastructure and connectivity initiatives in Asia.

New Delhi’s opposition was borne of its genuinely divergent interests, but also served as a mode of paying back Beijing for its refusal to support India’s accession as a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, an international group aimed at countering the export of equipment to make nuclear weapons, plus its tendency to go to bat for its ally Pakistan at the United Nations.

For China, the experience at Doklam will serve as a source of important lessons on everything ranging from New Delhi’s resolve when its national security interests are involved to India’s self-conception as a great power in Asia. The standoff was an illustration that if China sought to put India in its place, so to speak, after the public opposition to its “Belt and Road” initiative, it would have to expend greater resources and expose itself to more risk.

Once it became clear that the two ways out of the impasse at Doklam were a military conflict that neither side wanted or the solution that was eventually reached –India’s desired final goal – diplomacy prevailed.

What comes after the Doklam saga will matter greatly for the relationship between China and India. They will remain side by side, their border will remain disputed. Their relationship will maintain an uneasy balance between cooperation in some matters and intense competition in others.

The end of the standoff restores this state of affairs. What remains to be seen is if the bitter experience at Doklam leaves a lasting stain on how India and China see each other.

Ankit Panda is a senior editor at The Diplomat, where he writes on international security, diplomacy and economics in the Asia-Pacific region
India's trespass had transformed the dispute into a show-hand on the sovereignty of Donglang.
Road building had become secondary.
That standoff had forced a decision on whether that land belongs to China or Bhutan.
India cannot back off and still say that the land don't belong to China.
If land belongs to China, India got no say whether road is built or not.
If land belongs to Bhutan as India asserts, India need not pull out on China's demand.
When guns are drawn it matters only who will put his gun down, not why the guns were drawn.

The side that cowers is India, no 2 ways about it.
Once a stand-off had begun, it matters who will blink 1st, not why there is a stand-off.
Its matters whether it is a mutual stand down or one side cowers and stand down unilaterally.
India had timidly withdrawn and China has stayed on, it established that India had obeyed China's demand to withdraw.

China have to publicly and explicitly say that India had stood down due to China promising not to extend the road in order for India to redeem any pride.
So far no such statement from China.
If India is not lying, which is unusual, India must insist that China issue such a statement.
In fact if that is the case, there should have been a mutual stand down.
That would have clarified that India's action is justified.

But the facts are India had OBEYED China's demand without any publicly announced concessions.
Good Boy Obedient India.
Obedient India should attend to the riots in Haryana and Punjab and floods in Assam instead of being troublemaker.
.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 2, Members: 0, Guests: 2)


Back
Top Bottom